Author, writer, critic, humanist, chocoholic; I write about art, politics, and religion -- the things that people argue about at cocktail parties -- in the belief that doing so will actually make us all better people, living in a more fulfilling, inspired, enlightened, and peaceful world. In addition to my work at Forbes, I am a contributing editor at Art & Auction and Interiors magazines; have won awards for my essays from The Economist and the National Health Education Association; published articles and op-eds in (among others) the Wall Street Journal, Int'l Herald Tribune, The New Republic, and Vogue; and am the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy In the West (Praeger, 2010).
See my web site at www.abigailesman.com
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/radicalstates

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[fostering] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offense, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Well “the gay lifestyle” I suppose can mean different things to many people. So good to challenge that one. But I guess I meant to infer the out of the closet gays practicing gay sex as their sexual preference. While I tried to figure out what I meant by using the reference “gay lifestyle” I found this link to this ex-gay ministry that seem to explain a lot about what many Christians (also myself unashamedly so) believe about homosexuality. I found it pretty rationale. http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/commonquestionsabouthomosexualityp39.php

The effect is questionable on many counts. on the one hand, as I noted, General Assembly resolutions are unbinding. But on the other hand, the OIC can (and likely will) condemn any Western country that fails to prevent, censor, or criminalize speech or other expression that fits their definition of “blasphemy,” view it as an incitement for violence, and take action accordingly – which could get ugly. It also, on a larger scale, indicates a willingness of the US to go to the table to discuss what is absolutely non-negotiable: the right to free expression in the United States of America under the Constitution. In that regard, damage has already been done: we should not even have entered this conversation.

As for Canada: I believe that you are incorrect about the actual law, since “offense” can be defined with enormous subjectivity and relativism. By the standard you present, the song ‘Short People” could be censored under Canadian law, and I am quite certain it was not.

The law is very subjective. As far as I am concerned the best summery is: Anything that offended or hurt anyone could be illegal, it is up to the government and the courts to decide if it breaks some imaginary boundary.

Without even changing any laws, our freedom of speech as Canadians changes with the subjective opinion of a judge on what a completely subjective law means.

Interesting. My reading of it is that Canada forbids hate speech (which the US does not), but that’s not the same as “offensive” speech. Clearly, though, it appears to be less absolute than in the USA – which is not surprising, since no country is as adamant about true freedom of speech as is America. This, to my mind, is part of the USA’s greatness. (And forgive me for speaking of the US as “America.” I’m aware that Canada is, too!)

Respectfully Abigail…Canada is not part of “America”. More correctly we are the northern most country on the continent of ‘North America”. This year we celebrate the bicentennial of the war of 1812…..ie…keeping the “Americans” on the other side of the 49thparallel, the great lakes and the St. Lawrence River. Great article BTW….got the link from Richard Dawkins site.

The Islamic countries are as usual pushing their agenda in the West with the clueless cooperation or support of the PC crowd.

It hasn’t been too long ago that Mark Steyn and MacLean magazine were acquitted of hate speech brought against him by Muslims for mentioning the facts in the article which apparently the Muslims didn’t like.

That is the problem with Muslimsm. They have a total different set of values. What is offensive to them is anything that they don’t like, the fact that something is the truth doesn’t matter to them.

Agreeing to this resolution, regardless of it being a non binding resolution, is just a toehold into more restrictions of free speech in the future.

On a daily basis the Islamic world exhort jihad against infidels, etc. Well, according to sharia it is not hate speech.

This sounds like the dangerous Ron Paul philosophy and how it can backfire and result in this type of attack on free speech and other attacks on our way of life. Paul believes we caused the attacks on our nation. But that is not true. If you look at the attacks that islamists have made worldwide… you then have to admit that the problem is not that the Western Societies caused the attacks upon itself by the islamists who want to implement a worldwide caliphate. We simply did NOT cause these attacks. Islamism is merely a violent intolerant ideology and it won’t be stopped by placating it. It will only be stopped by a strong presidency and a strong will of the American people.

Other nations still look for the US to lead in promoting it’s brand of freedom and liberty. We cannot disappoint the world. We must be ourselves. That means we must defend the fixed Constitution and the legacy of freedom and the meaning that comes from our Republic form of government. Democracy is not our form of government and we should not be trying to spread a foreign governmental system that we do not have.